4 ms·

The Fog of Cyberwar – Why the Threat Doesn’t Live Up to the Hype

9 points by Libertatea 14y ago

Quarrelsome 14y ago
I like the way this article seems to think that the only attacks that exist are those that are reported. I'd figure the most effective attacks are ones that no-one notices or reports.
- lmm 14y ago
  The kind of attack Panetta was talking about would be very obvious. Obviously espionage is most effective when secret, and will probably be ongoing, but those attacks don't affect civilians, and rogue individuals can't accomplish anything useful with them (if a lone hacker grabbed a copy of the F-35 schematics, so what? It's only when combined with the traditional machinery of a nation state that they become useful)
  - bediger4000 14y ago
    I used to work in Aerospace. Since we could barely understand our own analyses and documentation, I figured that the best thing to do would be to ship a complete copy to the Bulgarians (really, that was what the security weenies said they were scared of in 1986, Bulgarians) and let them waste their time trying to figure out all the inane assumptions, bad engineering, and dumb luck implicit in the designs.
  - niels_olson 14y ago
    The rogue individuals are actually somewhat humorous. They often approach their presumed customer, only to find that customer nation turning them in as a snitch, or get caught in a sting. The classic is Ariel Weinmann, who was arrested at the border after being rejected by customers in Vienna and Mexico City. Just yesterday, Robert Patrick Hoffman was arrested in an FBI sting trying to sell stuff the Russia. Stewart David Nozette was convicted in March. Recent San Diego history: Hassan Abu-Jihaad. Conversely, serious spies have serious jobs: Yu Qin, Shanshan Du, Chi Mak, Katrina Leung. Here's a nice summary of the Chinese theater http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=283&catid=8 http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=283&catid=8
MrDrone 14y ago
There seems to be two kinds of articles floating around in regards to "cyberwar" this one, which I feel underplays the potential dangers and those that stick to Panetta's Pearl Harbor-style prediction. I think both fail to capture the reality of the situation. As with most things I believe the threat falls somewhere in the middle. While cyberwar (which is a dumb term) hasn't yet resulted in 'real' causalities I think using that as a metric is outdated. Cyberwar will never have the same strategy as traditional war. Economic havoc and infrastructure disruption will be the name of the game and with the right set of environmental circumstances a small group of people can have a huge impact on the world stage. I believe non-state actors will be a powerful force in this arena. The infrastructure required for these actions isn't nearly as huge as this article tries to make it out. That said, I also don't believe all of the end-of-days fear mongering that's grown up around the idea either. Just as with all new threats, we will adapt.

9 points by Libertatea 14y ago

I like the way this article seems to think that the only attacks that exist are those that are reported. I'd figure the most effective attacks are ones that no-one notices or reports.

lmm 14y ago
The kind of attack Panetta was talking about would be very obvious. Obviously espionage is most effective when secret, and will probably be ongoing, but those attacks don't affect civilians, and rogue individuals can't accomplish anything useful with them (if a lone hacker grabbed a copy of the F-35 schematics, so what? It's only when combined with the traditional machinery of a nation state that they become useful)
- bediger4000 14y ago
  I used to work in Aerospace. Since we could barely understand our own analyses and documentation, I figured that the best thing to do would be to ship a complete copy to the Bulgarians (really, that was what the security weenies said they were scared of in 1986, Bulgarians) and let them waste their time trying to figure out all the inane assumptions, bad engineering, and dumb luck implicit in the designs.
- niels_olson 14y ago
  The rogue individuals are actually somewhat humorous. They often approach their presumed customer, only to find that customer nation turning them in as a snitch, or get caught in a sting. The classic is Ariel Weinmann, who was arrested at the border after being rejected by customers in Vienna and Mexico City. Just yesterday, Robert Patrick Hoffman was arrested in an FBI sting trying to sell stuff the Russia. Stewart David Nozette was convicted in March. Recent San Diego history: Hassan Abu-Jihaad. Conversely, serious spies have serious jobs: Yu Qin, Shanshan Du, Chi Mak, Katrina Leung. Here's a nice summary of the Chinese theater http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=283&catid=8 http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=283&catid=8

MrDrone 14y ago

There seems to be two kinds of articles floating around in regards to "cyberwar" this one, which I feel underplays the potential dangers and those that stick to Panetta's Pearl Harbor-style prediction. I think both fail to capture the reality of the situation. As with most things I believe the threat falls somewhere in the middle. While cyberwar (which is a dumb term) hasn't yet resulted in 'real' causalities I think using that as a metric is outdated. Cyberwar will never have the same strategy as traditional war. Economic havoc and infrastructure disruption will be the name of the game and with the right set of environmental circumstances a small group of people can have a huge impact on the world stage. I believe non-state actors will be a powerful force in this arena. The infrastructure required for these actions isn't nearly as huge as this article tries to make it out. That said, I also don't believe all of the end-of-days fear mongering that's grown up around the idea either. Just as with all new threats, we will adapt.